Are Our Correctional Drug Policies Lowering Crime Rates?

In a press release issued from then Solicitor General of Canada, Lawrence MacAulay’s office on April 18, 2002 announcing an International Experts Forum on Addictions and Criminal Justice, it was stated that: “Research has shown that over 70 per cent of offenders have substance abuse problems at the time of their admission. Offenders who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are also more likely to be under their influence when they commit their crime. CSC believes that by helping offenders to overcome their addiction, they will have a better chance of becoming responsible, law-abiding citizens. This in turn contributes to the Government’s objective of safer communities” (CSC 2002a). On April 30, 2002, Lucie McClung, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada stated that: “seventy percent of offenders entering our institutions have a substance abuse problem that is directly linked to their criminal behavior.” She says that the CSC can best protect the citizens of Canada by helping offenders return to the community without returning to criminal behavior, and that offering substance abuse programs should reduce recidivism by 30%–and possibly up to 60% (CSC 2002b).

These examples demonstrate that key decision makers in our criminal justice and correctional systems appear to assume a causal link between substance abuse and crime. While “research” may have been used to produce the statistics used here, the best empirical evidence has not documented causality in this case. Causality is assumed, without question. This situation may have encouraged corrections policies to place much of its focus on reducing substance use in offenders while ignoring the evidence that suggests drug abuse is not as strong a criminogenic need as other factors. If the intent of these policies is to reduce future crime, this may not be the most effective method.

Could it be possible that the policies that have been developed to lower the consumption of certain drugs have in fact created a stronger link between the use of these substances and crime? Research gives us information that point to this being a strong possibility because of such things as the creation of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, the effects of prohibition on the price of drugs like heroin and cocaine, and the development of conditions that fuel the illegal drug trade. Ironically, the drug whose use appears to be the most strongly correlated to violent crime, alcohol, is a legal substance. The next section points to some of the evidence supporting the claim that our prohibitionist drug laws are not effective in lowering crime rates and may, in fact, be a contributor to crime in Canada.

Rates of Criminal Code Violations for Drug Possession

When you look at the numbers of criminal code violations for possessing a prohibited substance, an argument can be made that the criminalization of these substances is manufacturing crime. And how much crime is created in this way? It turns out that it is a non-trivial amount. In a research report commissioned by the Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Casavant and Collin (2001) tell us that: “in 2000, Canadian police departments reported a total of 87,945 offences under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. Three-quarters of those offences involved marijuana, 68% of them possession” (p. 4). That is a lot of crime created by the criminalization of the personal possession of one drug. Casavant and Collins (2001) go on to conclude that “the research shows that police resources and strategies adopted in the fight against drugs very much influence official crime statistics” (p. 5).

It is common to blame drugs for crime – but what if we stepped back and looked a little deeper and asked that if these drugs were not prohibited, what would happen to all of this crime? Obviously, it would disappear because an illegal act would not occur if the laws making possession illegal were repealed. When we internalize the assumption that drug use causes crime, the logical response to this is that removal of the law would lead to widespread increase in the use of the drug, which would lead, in turn, to an increase in crime. However, if we based these policies on the evidence discussed in this article, we may come to believe that drug use rarely leads to crime directly, and that removal of the law would not create an increase in crime. In this case, the crime of possession would fall dramatically, along with the many costs to us of enforcement of these laws.